Lawsuit: Adjourned Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22

Status
Not open for further replies.
Your Honor,

The plaintiff rests.
 
The defendant may now cross-examine the witness. 48 hours to present questions, and the witness has 48 hours starting from the time of presentation to answer them.
 
Greetings. I will be taking over as presiding officer for this case.
 
Your Honor,

The plaintiff would like to request the reason for the change of presiding officer mid-case...
 
Nacho said:
Your Honor,

The plaintiff would like to request the reason for the change of presiding officer mid-case...
Click to expand...
The decision to change the presiding officer mid-case was made in the interest of upholding the right to a speedy trial. Given Kai's substantial caseload, the courts determined reassignment would be appropriate.
 
Your Honor, The Plaintiff requests a 14 hour extension to witness questioning due to some unexpected IRL obligations. (12:32am EST deadline).
 
Angryhamdog said:
Your Honor, The Plaintiff requests a 14 hour extension to witness questioning due to some unexpected IRL obligations. (12:32am EST deadline).
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
@Freeze_Line
  1. Does the DOJ have any legal requirement to comply with the requests of the FRB?
  2. Did the FRB take any part in executing the search warrant?
  3. In your opinion, was the execution of the warrant in line with standard legal procedures?
  4. Who was responsible for ensuring the warrant request was properly written?
  5. What would be the process for officially challenging a warrant?
  6. Did the Bank of Reveille provide the required balance sheets before the warrant was filed?
  7. Did the DOJ verify the claims made by Reserve Governor Stoppers before filing the warrant?
  8. Did the warrant seek anything other than the BORs balance sheets?
  1. "Why is that this policy is inaccessible to the public via the forums?" - Judicial Officer
    - Yes
  2. "How is the public supposed to find these policies?" - Judicial Officer
    - Yes
  3. "The policy says it’s open to the public, yet it is also classified?" - Judicial Officer
    - Yes
  4. "Why does this say Act, which converts the idea that this is an Act of Congress when this is a financial policy?" - Judicial Officer
    - Yes
Click to expand...
9. Did the Judicial Officer approve the warrant after stating the comments you confirmed above?

We will be asking follow-up questions depending on the Witnesses answers.
 
Last edited:
1. Does the DOJ have any legal requirement to comply with the requests of the FRB?
- We always investigate if we believe something is illegal. I'm not entirely sure if there is a law that specifically requires us to do so however.

2. Did the FRB take any part in executing the search warrant?
- The balance sheet was later provided directly to the FRB instead of me, but they did not take any part in executing the search warrant.

3. In your opinion, was the execution of the warrant in line with standard legal procedures?
- I believe so, yes.

4. Who was responsible for ensuring the warrant request was properly written?
- I was, based on the information provided to the DOJ.

5. What would be the process for officially challenging a warrant?
- I don't think you can actually challenge a warrant. If the judge approves it, it's approved.

6. Did the Bank of Reveille provide the required balance sheets before the warrant was filed?
- I asked for the balance sheet after the warrant was filed, but it was not provided to the FRB before the warrant was filed.

7. Did the DOJ verify the claims made by Reserve Governor Stoppers before filing the warrant?
- The FRB provided screenshots.

8. Did the warrant seek anything other than the BORs balance sheets?
- No.

9. Did the Judicial Officer approve the warrant after stating the comments you confirmed above?
- Yes.
 
My apologies for the wait. The Defendant will only be asking one followup question:

@Freeze_Line
Follow-up for question 8:
Was the Bank of Reveille already legally required to provide the Balance Sheets under the powers granted to the FRB under the Bank Reserve Requirement Act?
 
Angryhamdog said:
Follow-up for question 8:
Was the Bank of Reveille already legally required to provide the Balance Sheets under the powers granted to the FRB under the Bank Reserve Requirement Act?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Your Honor, the Defense has no more questions. Thank you.
 
Cross-examination has now ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their closing statement. @Nacho
 
Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension as I have been working straight 12-13-hour days in retail in the springtime. After getting home, I have been dead for the past couple of days.
 
Nacho said:
Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension as I have been working straight 12-13-hour days in retail in the springtime. After getting home, I have been dead for the past couple of days.
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension, I have been requested to take up the closing statements at this time, and while I appreciate that the court has provided a 24-hour extension just prior, I would ask for just a smidge more to properly formulate a closing statement as the plaintiff has come unto a busy schedule.

We appreciate the court during this time and thank you for your patience in this matter, we will have a closing statement prepared within this time. Thank you again.
 
asexualdinosaur said:
Your Honor,

We request a 24-hour extension, I have been requested to take up the closing statements at this time, and while I appreciate that the court has provided a 24-hour extension just prior, I would ask for just a smidge more to properly formulate a closing statement as the plaintiff has come unto a busy schedule.

We appreciate the court during this time and thank you for your patience in this matter, we will have a closing statement prepared within this time. Thank you again.
Click to expand...
Granted. This will be your final extension.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Reserve Ratios

The Federal Reserve Act outlines clearly the responsibilities in Section 3, and allows them some level of policy shaping and execution. The way they are to do so is outlined in Section 5 - Monetary Policy Tools.

'(e) Reserve Requirements
(i) The Reserve Bank sets reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits. By adjusting these requirements, the central bank affects the amount of money banks can lend and the money multiplier.'

The key point here is that they may set a ratio ‘minimum amounts of funds’ that ‘BANKS MUST HOLD in reserve against their deposits’ -- Their policy executing authority only reaches so far, under this legislation, they MAY NOT dictate that banks hold funds in the Federal Reserve, and enabling them to do so could potentially CAUSE harm by delaying depositor withdraws.

The Bank of Reveille does not contend with the Federal Reserve’s ability to set a reserve ratio as compelled by legitimate policy.

On the Bank Reserve Requirement Act

Most importantly in all of this is that the ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act’ isn’t public. P-1 clearly shows that this was never put up to motion by the Federal Reserve, and if you look today at the FRB Motions Thread they make use of this thread, but this ‘Act’ and the many others the FRB has ‘passed’ were never made public.

This confusion isn’t unique, as confirmed by the Attorney General the presiding judicial officer was quite confused on how the public would be aware of this act at all, and why it was being presented as a legislative ‘act’, the judicial officer also noting that the document was ‘classified’ -- witness testimony


Cloak and Dagger policy

While the Federal Reserve may enjoy certain independence, they are NOT a shadow legislator.
7 - Financial Independence and Accountability outlines that they are to make regular MONTHLY reports to congress, and that congress may overturn a decision (7.2 & 7.6), and the FRB has historically failed to follow through on these reports. In the PUBLIC #frb-reporting channel in Congress. Notably the ‘Bank Reserve Requirement Act’, was never posted there either.

The Federal Reserve may be able to draft policy, but it is not reasonable for them to execute policy made and kept in secret and labeled as ‘classified’. This is NOT how policy is regularly enacted in Redmont. The DCT has a thread for their policy which the courts have historically relied on as enactable policy. -- DCT Policy Thread

In the case of Intercepticon v. DCT [2021] FCR 10 ‘It is questionable to me that a department feels it is sufficient to operate policies with such a cloak and dagger approach. These policies and regulations affect the public; they should be accessible to the public.’ This feels staggeringly relevant to the facts of the case today, the Bank Reserve Requirement Act was never made public.

In the Verdict they asked the DCT to make their policy public barring reasonable justification.
‘The DCT to make public on the forums all non-sensitive BI protocols as soon as is reasonably practicable, given that such a change may require staff to edit permissions. Reasonable justifications must be given if any protocols are withheld from the public.’

This Verdict was clarified here that policies need to be accessible to the public to be binding on them. It is clear in that case as it is here, that it is unreasonable for a permanent location for a policy, and as such the Bank Reserve Requirement Act is not a binding policy.

This is a clear overreach of power that is NOT outlined to the Federal Reserve, they should be held to the same standards of policy as Departments are. Public and accessible to be binding.


On the expansion and assumption of powers not granted


The Federal Reserve additionally expanded its own responsibilities and assumed those already given to the Department of Commerce outlined in the Commercial Standards Act.

4 - Powers of the Commerce Department -

‘(2) The Department of Commerce is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance.
’(5) The Department of Commerce is charged with investigating commerce-related white-collar crimes.’

Both the access to financial information AND the investigative nature in looking into being ‘non-compliant with the law’ as the Attorney General says here are responsibilities legislated to the Department of Commerce, and by assuming these responsibilities at all, but more importantly with secret policy is an overreach of their powers entirely and NOT something the Federal Reserve Act enables them.

Additionally in the Taxation Act, the role of the Department of Commerce is CLEAR.

8 - Powers of the Department of Commerce --

‘Historical events have proven that strong regulatory powers are necessary for the adequate protection of the depositors of deposit-taking institutions.’
‘These powers are vested in the Department of Commerce to uphold the integrity of financial institution taxation, ensure compliance with regulations, and protect the interests of depositors and the broader financial system.’

It is clear cut, the Department of Commerce is the REGULATORY body of financial institutions, and is given strong regulatory powers specifically for deposit-taking institutions such as BOR. The FRB CANNOT assume authority where it has already been granted explicitly, and should instead work with the DOC to enact on its policy.


On the defences opening statement

‘No “unreasonable search” was undertaken, and no rights were threatened as a result of these actions, because the only information requested was already required by law.’ -- If this is true then the search MUST have been unreasonable and rights threatened, because the information requested could NOT be binding as it was NOT public, and therefore not required by law.

‘It is clear to the defense that this case is an effort to circumvent congressionally-delegated economic regulations through the court system.’
BOR has no issue following legitimate and legal policy enacted according to law. BOR has not had issues with compliance with the DOC unlike some banks recently. This policy was not issued to the public, and is therefore non-binding. Additionally the delegated regulations were provided to the DOC, NOT the FRB, and as such the Federal Reserve has overreached in their powers and authority.

‘as Congress, through the Federal Reserve Act, has given the Federal Reserve the authority to establish regulatory measures relating to money in order to create a stable economy.‘
This is flatly false, the Federal Reserve Act allows them to ‘shape and execute policies related to money’ -- The Act does not enable them regulatory powers, and this is obvious by the clear outline of these powers to the Department of Commerce.


In Summary

It is our position that the Federal Reserve should not be allowed to regulate deposit-taking institutions in such a way as to request financial records directly from them, or to request that the DOJ investigate on their behalf as this was never allotted to them as it was the DOC, and the FRB is NOT a regulatory body.

We ask the court to recognize the importance of policy being public. If we enable the Federal Reserve to act in secret, they can make policy with no public oversight or knowledge, the public is deprived of any potential benefit or harm caused.

We believe it is important that this court clarify where reserve ratios are held and request an interpretation of the law explicitly should a legitimate policy be put into place in the future.

 
The Defence has 72 hours to submit their closing statement.
 
Your Honor, I would like to request a 18 hour extension (Friday, 10:06PM EST). I was preoccupied with running the elections for the DOS tonight, my apologies.
 
Last edited:
Angryhamdog said:
Your Honor, I would like to request a 18 hour extension (Friday, 10:06PM EST). I was preoccupied with running the elections for the DOS tonight, my apologies.
Click to expand...
Granted.
 
Your Honor, I made a mistake in calculating the times and under-requested the time we should have asked for (as I converted the time to EST). I request a 6 hour extension on top of the previous request (for a total of 24 hours on the original deadline) to allow me to polish my closing statement to an acceptable degree before the court. My apologies, and we thank the court.
 
Angryhamdog said:
Your Honor, I made a mistake in calculating the times and under-requested the time we should have asked for (as I converted the time to EST). I request a 6 hour extension on top of the previous request (for a total of 24 hours on the original deadline) to allow me to polish my closing statement to an acceptable degree before the court. My apologies, and we thank the court.
Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Closing Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


“The Federal Reserve bears the primary responsibility for shaping and executing policies related to money.”

This is the first statement under the Federal Reserve Act, Section 3, regarding the responsibilities of the Federal Reserve. This clause is intentionally broad as the legislators of the time understood the vast and difficult to legislate needs of the federal reserve. Just as the Plot Standards Act delegates the power to the DCT to shape policy executed as law, the Federal Reserve Act gives the power to the FRB to shape policy, regarding to ‘money’, that is to be considered binding.

One such policy is the ability to assert ratios of ‘minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits’. This does not state where the banks are required to hold their deposits, which allows the federal reserve to have discretion and publish a policy, such as the Bank Reserve Requirement Act, which dictates where they are required to hold these deposits.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Bank Reserve Requirement Act isn’t public. This is ridiculous. Reserve Governor Stoppers posted it in the #announcements channel of the Federal Reserve discord server twice, with the associated announcements, on the 25th of January and the 3rd of February. The ‘classified’ nature of the document is merely a Federal Reserve organization internal policy, and the document clearly states the classification is ‘1 (May be viewed by the Public”.

Regarding the ‘Cloak and Dagger’ policy enforcement, the Federal Reserve was clearly not ‘shadow legislating’ or enforcing their policies in a way that would make it difficult for banks to comply. Other than the general announcements and a post in #news regarding it, Reserve Governor Stoppers individually messaged the owners of each institution that was affected. Of the parties to be accused of ‘Cloak and Dagger’ dealings, it should be clear that the party that failed to show transparency was the Bank of Reveille, who failed to even acknowledge the message was received and needed a warrant and was blocked by the courts in order to comply.

For the Plaintiff’s quoted case of Intercepticon v. DCT [2021] FCR 10, this case is completely irrelevant to the issues at hand. The Plaintiff in Interception v. DCT was given no notice, and had his property seized without any chance to remedy the issue. In contrast, the Bank of Reveille had two announcements and a private DM (see P-006) requesting compliance with several weeks of buffer to ensure compliance.

Regarding the Judicial Officers’ reservations that were confirmed by Freeze_Line, it is worth again mentioning that the Judicial Officer signed the warrant. If there was a serious issue in which the Judicial Officer truly believed that the Act’s publicity and subsequent notifications to the bank weren’t sufficient, then why would they approve the warrant?

Regarding the Taxation Act, the reasoning for it was signed four years before the Federal Reserve came into existence. The exact reasoning is hardly applicable here, as it has now been over six years since those reasons were used, which is almost the entirety of the length Redmont has existed as a country, and the duties of the Federal Reserve and the Department of Commerce are vastly different than they were six years ago.

Finally, I wish to address the most important question before the court: Does the Federal Reserve have regulatory powers?

The answer to this question is unequivocally yes. Under the Federal Reserve Act, Section 4, it explains a group under the Federal Reserve is the ‘Commercial Board’, charged with serving as an ‘advisory body to regulatory agencies’, and that ‘Their expertise and insights would be valuable in crafting effective regulations’. This clearly shows that the government agency of the Federal Reserve has regulatory powers. Additionally, they are given powers such as changing Starting Player Balance and minting currency, which are inherently actions used to regulate the economy as a whole.

Your Honor, the Federal Reserve Bank has acted justly, legally, and within the bounds established by Congress, which are continually reaffirmed as Congress doesn’t exercise their powers to overturn decisions made by the Federal Reserve (Federal Reserve Act Section 7.6), and we petition the court to confirm that the FRB, working in tandem with the Executive Government, can create policy necessary that ensures our economy allows all citizens of Redmont to thrive.

We thank the Judiciary and opposing counsel for their time.

 
The Court will hereby enter recess pending verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Bank of Reveille v. Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) [2025] FCR 22

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) unlawfully assumed investigative and enforcement powers not granted under the Federal Reserve Act, infringing on powers explicitly granted to the Department of Commerce under the Commercial Standards Act and Taxation Act.

2. The FRB’s enforcement of the “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” violated fundamental constitutional rights, including protection against unreasonable search and seizure, due process, and equal treatment under the law.

3. The “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” is not a binding policy as it was never made public in accordance with legal precedent (e.g., Intercepticon v. DCT), rendering compliance unenforceable.

4. The Department of Justice issued a warrant based on materially false or incomplete information, without proper independent investigation or recognition of clerical errors presented prior to execution.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Federal Reserve Bank acted within the lawful scope of its authority under the Federal Reserve Act to set and enforce monetary policies, including reserve requirements.

2. The FRB did not conduct an investigation or execute the warrant but rather referred concerns to the Department of Justice, which independently sought and executed the warrant.

3. The “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” was sufficiently published via FRB announcements and direct outreach to affected institutions, meeting the requirement of public accessibility.

4. The Bank of Reveille failed to meet the clear and communicated compliance deadline, and the search warrant was a reasonable and proportionate measure based on established noncompliance.

5. No constitutional rights were violated, as the information requested was already lawfully required and did not extend into protected client or private data.

III. THE COURT OPINION
This case is complex and has far-reaching consequences. To summarize the following ~1000 words: the Court finds that the “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” was not publicly accessible, was improperly labeled as legislation, and reflects a serious misunderstanding of the Federal Reserve Bank’s limited role under Redmont law.

Was the “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” public, and therefore binding? No.
While technically posted in the FRB Discord’s #announcements channel on January 25th and again on February 3rd, the Court finds that the policy was not sufficiently published to be considered binding, and finds no reason to believe it was sufficiently accessible for the Bank of Redmont representative. The first post was made before the Bank of Reveille’s representative joined the server. The second post, although closer to the relevant date, included no ping, no confirmation of delivery or acknowledgment, and no corresponding post in a permanent public forum, such as the government forums where other departments publish binding policy.

Even worse, the Bank Reserve Requirement “Act” was not a forum thread but a google document riddled with contradictory and deeply concerning markings. Specifically:
  • Every page of the document was labeled “CLASSIFIED” despite being allegedly “open to the public.”

  • The document warns in bold, capitalized text: “ACCESS BY NON-FEDERAL RESERVE BANK GOVERNORS IS A VIOLATION OF POLICY AND PROSECUTABLE.”

  • The footer states that “NO COPIES ARE TO BE DISTRIBUTED PUBLICLY WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE GOVERNOR OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK.”
Let the Court be perfectly clear: This is not public policy. This is not transparency. This is not accessible. This is absurd. The Federal Reserve’s claim that this document constitutes “public posting” is entirely disingenuous, and frankly, insulting to the standards of governance expected within the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Moreover, this Court is appalled at the FRB's continued use of the term “Act”. The term “act” is used primarily as the “act of congress” as legislation passed by the congress. The usage of the term by the Federal Reserve Bank is inappropriate and misrepresents the legal origin and authority. Relying on a term associated with the second highest code of our Commonwealth is highly condemnable.

This conduct flies directly in the face of the Federal Reserve Act §3(3), which requires the FRB to ensure:

“clear and accessible communication... to the public.”​

Instead, the FRB chose to host policy in an externally hosted document, mark it as classified, restrict its distribution, and post it without notification in a transient channel. This is governance by cloak and dagger.

As affirmed in Icypenguin79 v. Department of Construction and Transport [2021] FCR 44, policies “need to be accessible to the public to be binding on them.” The Bank Reserve Requirement “Act” utterly fails this standard—in form, function, and publication. It cannot bind anyone — and it certainly cannot justify the issuance of a search warrant.

This Court finds the “Act” not only non-binding, but also emblematic of a broader misunderstanding—or willful ignorance—of the FRB’s role within Redmont’s legal hierarchy.


There were a few more legal questions brought up which I’d like to answer.

Are banks protected by constitutional rights afforded to citizens? No.
As established in Bank and Trust of Redmont v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 8, “organizations such as banks are not considered citizens under the law.” While citizens operating within those organizations may be indirectly impacted by governmental action, Articles XIII, XIV, and XV do not directly apply to organizations, as they specifically reference citizens. Therefore, claims of constitutional violation raised by the Plaintiff are unfounded in law and are accordingly dismissed.

Does the Federal Reserve have investigative authority? No.
The Federal Reserve Act empowers the FRB to “oversee and guide banks,” and to “set reserve requirements,” but it does not grant the power to conduct investigations or pursue warrants. In contrast, the Commercial Standards Act explicitly grants these powers to the Department of Commerce:

“(1) The Department of Commerce is authorized to monitor financial transactions…”​
“(2) The Department of Commerce is afforded access to financial institution accounts on request for the purposes of monitoring them for compliance.”​

Specific statutory authority trumps general authority. The Department of Commerce, not the FRB, is the regulatory and investigative authority over financial institutions in Redmont. Additionally, the FRB’s own policy—the very “Bank Reserve Requirement Act” at the center of this case—only states that the FRB:

“may impose penalties on institutions failing to meet the reserve requirement, including fines or restrictions on lending and investment activities.”​

There is no mention whatsoever of the FRB conducting investigations or filing warrants. The FRB was, by its own terms, limited to economic penalties, not investigative processes.

The Court frankly does not understand—and sees no statutory or policy justification—for why the FRB believed it had the authority to refer the Bank of Reveille to the Department of Justice for enforcement. Nor does the Court understand why the DOJ accepted that request without consulting the Department of Commerce, the actual body empowered to investigate and monitor banks.

This is not a minor procedural error; it is a fundamental breakdown of legal boundaries. It reflects either a serious misreading of the law by both the FRB and DOJ, or a troubling attempt to circumvent the correct regulatory process entirely.

Does the law require banks to hold their reserves within the FRB itself? No.
The governing statute — the Federal Reserve Act §5(e)(i) — states:

“The Reserve Bank sets reserve requirements, which are the minimum amounts of funds that banks must hold in reserve against their deposits.”​

This clause permits the FRB to establish ratios for how much of a bank’s funds must be retained in reserve—that is, withheld from lending or investment to ensure liquidity. However, critically, it does not specify where those reserves must be held, and it contains no language mandating that those funds be deposited into the FRB's own accounts.

Moreover, this Court observes an important textual distinction: throughout the Federal Reserve Act, the term “Reserve”—when referring to the Federal Reserve Bank—is capitalized as a proper noun. However, in this clause, the word “reserve” appears in lowercase, suggesting that it does not refer to the institution, but to the general economic concept of a reserve fund. This deviation implies that the statute intends for banks to retain their own reserves—not necessarily transfer them to FRB custody.

If the legislature had intended for banks to deposit reserves directly into FRB-controlled accounts, it could have said so explicitly. It did not. This Court therefore concludes that the FRB’s imposition of a location-based reserve mandate—requiring banks to deposit a portion of funds with the Federal Reserve itself—lacks statutory support.

Accordingly, any enforcement action premised on failure to deposit reserves with the FRB, rather than simply holding them internally, rests on a misreading of the law.
Click to expand...
IV. DECISION
The Federal Court of Redmont hereby rules in favour of the Plaintiff, and grants the following Prayers for Relief:

Prayer for Relief #1: That the Bank Reserve Requirement Act is struck as an overreach of authority.
Granted. The Court hereby STRIKES the "Bank Reserve Requirement Act" in full. The Court finds that the policy was not lawfully enacted, not sufficiently published, and not binding upon financial institutions within the Commonwealth of Redmont. The FRB lacked both the statutory authority and procedural foundation to enforce this policy, and its attempt to do so constituted a clear overreach of power. Additionally, the naming of the policy as an “Act” falsely implied legislative legitimacy, which the FRB does not and cannot possess. The Court rules that this policy shall carry no legal weight, retroactively or prospectively.

Prayer for Relief #2: Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Granted. The Court DECLARES that the Federal Reserve Bank is authorized under the Federal Reserve Act to shape and execute monetary policy, including setting reserve ratios for banks. However, it is not authorized to conduct investigations, request legal enforcement actions, or compel financial disclosures. These functions rest exclusively with the Department of Commerce under the Commercial Standards Act. It must enforce its policies in coordination with the Department of Commerce.

Prayer for Relief #3: Declaratory judgment on the scope and purpose of the Federal Reserve Bank’s policy initiatives.
Granted. The Court DECLARES that any policy initiative of the Federal Reserve Bank must:
  • Be clearly and publicly published in an official, accessible, and persistent location, preferably on the forums;
  • Avoid titles that suggest legislative authority, such as "Act," unless passed by Congress;
  • Adhere to the powers expressly delegated by the Federal Reserve Act;
  • Be enforced only in cooperation with the Department of Commerce or other relevant regulatory agencies.
Any policy failing to meet these standards shall not be considered binding or enforceable against any institution or individual.

Prayer for Relief #4: Granted. $5000 in legal fees are to be paid to the Plaintiff.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top